Article on Umpiring Errors in the Hun

[Lantern]

Make a right decision, move with the times, says Lillee



Jon Pierik

January 03, 2008 12:00am



THE use of technology to assist umpires' decision-making has always been a matter of debate.

Dennis Lillee has a measured approach.

"I have no problems with technology that assists in helping umpires adjudicate correctly on run-outs and stumpings, but I am afraid 'Hawk-Eye' and his mate, the 'snickometer', are pure gadgetry," Lillee says.

England and Wales Cricket Board chairman Lord MacLaurin has a different opinion. After several contentious calls in England's Test series in Sri Lanka last month, Lord MacLaurin called for greater use.

"We should look and see how we can use technology sensibly," he said. "We don't want to slow the game down, but we have to get our decisions better."

So true. That was never more evident than yesterday when English umpire Mark Benson made two mistakes - one poor, the other a howler - and veteran West Indian Steve Bucknor added one of his own.

Benson first failed to hear Ricky Ponting's leg-side tickle off Sourav Ganguly, giving the Australian captain a reprieve on 17.

Channel 9's "snickometer" confirmed the edge, and gave viewers the correct call.

It did, however, take about three overs to compute the information.

But surely the technology will soon be there for a prompt answer. When it is it must be used.

Benson was again under fire when he missed Ponting's thick inside edge on to his pads and adjudged the Tasmanian lbw to a Harbhajan Singh doosra.

It was a howler of a call, and the look of disdain on Ponting's face and the angry slap of his pad as he trudged from the field said it all.

This blunder could have been avoided had Benson been allowed to consult the third umpire.

A quick replay was all it would have taken. There would have been little, if no, delay to the game.

Instead, most spectators were left to utter that sports adage: "That was the square-up".

Bucknor added to the frustration when he gave Andrew Symonds a reprieve on 30, rejecting an appeal for a clear caught behind off devastated young quick Ishant Sharma.

"Through our stump microphone you heard a big edge," Nine commentator Mark Taylor said. "That was a real blue there."

Again, it could have been avoided had the third umpire sitting in front of a TV screen been involved.

At a time when officials are floating such revolutionary changes as day-night Test cricket, surely the game is better off trying to do everything possible to get basic on-field decisions right.

With cricket now awash with cash, no longer can the nostalgic view that human error adds to the mystique of the sport be retained. This is a professional business with livelihoods on the line.

From the time a child picks up a bat, they are told to respect the umpire's decision.

But that respect will clearly be lost if international umpires cannot use technology for more than just run-outs and stumpings.

Cricket must move with the times.

[Lantern]

With cricket now awash with cash, no longer can the nostalgic view that human error adds to the mystique of the sport be retained. This is a professional business with livelihoods on the line.

From the time a child picks up a bat, they are told to respect the umpire's decision.

This is a very interesting dilemma. Are the umpires complicit in erosion of respect for them by their own errors? Players who get off (Symonds) tend to use the 'mystique of human error' line but there is no 'mystique' in the continuing catalogue of howlers in international cricket umpiring.

And what exactly is the implicit social status quo in the attitude that an authority figure is to be respected no matter how badly they perform? If a player is to be fined for 'dissent' when an unbelievably bad decision goes against them (which I think they should, in the spirit of the game), umpires have to be held accountable as well, by inquiry, suspension, or the like. Of course umpiring errors will occur, but consistently bad umpiring has to be seen to be addressed.

That is the most frustrating thing, I think, not so much that Steve Bucknor and co are deaf and blind, but that they are sacrosanct. Non-accountability doesn't lead to respect, it leads to more terrible officiating. The same principle applies in the AFL too. I understand the need to protect the umpire to promote umpiring as a career, but pretending howlers don't exist and no one being allowed to speak against them create frustration and unnecessary ill-will.